(Update: It has come to my attention that this guide has been archived and uploaded to different sites such as scribd. This is perfectly fine, so thank you for spreading the file. I only ask that you give credit to the author when doing so and not to charge any money for these documents. Thank you.)

Well, not sure how guiding the early, actual guide parts of the guide were, but I gotta say I did like a lot of the latter stuff. I guess there's not that much new at this point when it comes to guides and as doing what one thinks is the best is probably the best way to go at it, guides are going to be less specific if they aim to help as many as possible. You did offer some tips and such, stuff that isn't very new or unique I guess, but again, the stuff that came later I enjoyed more and would be a very important read to many.

I do like what you said about hour counts and the whole assuming sentience part. As for the switching section, I think it's pretty clear you avoided saying stuff like "tulpa-like state" or "become a tulpa" for a reason, which is smart. "Front" and "back" also probably refer to how some call it "fronting", but I can't say I really understand the whole front/back distinction you're supposed to be making here. "Switching places with your tulpa" is pretty close to "become the tulpa" in the eyes of some, so if you're planning on doing fixes on this, rewording that a bit might be a good idea.

Overall, I think it was a pleasant read with just enough text and a pleasant enough format. I would approve this, though ThunderClap might want to think of the switching part a bit more. Not enough to gain a disapproval in my eyes, but thin ice, you know.

The THE SUBCONCIOUS ochinchin occultists frt.sys (except Roswell because he doesn't want to be a part of it)

I agree that when it comes to catering to many topics, it becomes less specific, but for any creation guide, I mostly see how the person interprets the general information. It's understandable that the underlying concepts will be apparent, but when it comes to newcomers looking at different perspectives, they may be able to see patterns in why individuals would emphasize certain concepts.

And when it comes to creation guides, we know there's nothing procedural about it, just a lot of planning, and going at your own pace, and just persevering until breakthroughs are made. There's some form of opinion in any future submission on tulpa creation, but allowing others to get another angle from a person who may think certain concepts are more important (but not the absolute standard or anything) provides a sense of subjectivity.

To anyone who's already experienced, we would naturally see the underlying concepts and think of it as the same as any we may garner favoritism over, but I still think having different interpretations is inevitable. As for length, I love seeing a person formatting their way of how one may go about making tulpas, and have no problems if a person makes a longer entry, since that may make it more unique in some way.

I'll approve for Guides, and newcomers should already know to check other interpretations as well anyway. Unless they're that indolent to look at previous threads and sections of the forum. Oh wait.

Certain of the FAQ section questions don't seems like they shoudl be addressed hear, and I don't think a sweeping calling of x phenomenon "uncredible" is necessary in a guide, but other than that and a few minor personal gripes it seems fine (tulpar)

Reading it through, it all feels very familiar. At the least, the standard creation stuff is very generic. On the other hand, it's pretty concise and well-presented, and fairly agreeable too.

Pedantry ho:

Quote:Visualization is the process of imagining your tulpa in your mind's eye.

Imagining implies mind's eye. What else would you imagine your tulpa in? I have a conviction that if everyone truncated their "let's define visualisation" sentences in their guides to exclude "mind's eye" and all that nonsense then we'd miss out at least 40% of "help how do I visualise" stupidity. Maybe that's not very good critique but it's my advice.

Quote:This is "self induced schizophrenia!" - No it is not. It is impossible to give yourself something like schizophrenia.

This gets repeated a lot but it's not strictly true. Remember that prolonged use of certain drugs can at least contribute to cases of schizophrenia. And keep in mind that there aren't - as far as I know, at least - any studies of the long term effects of tulpas or something similar.

Quote:Contrary to popular belief, "hour counting" DOES NOT MEAN literally counting how many hours you have been tulpaforcing. Hour counting is when you expect how long creating your tulpa will take.

I know what you're trying to say here but it doesn't really make sense how you say it. To say that hour counting isn't counting hours seems to be confusing to me. I would rephrase as 'the bad part of hour counting is the expectation'. Or maybe' when people talk about "hour counts are bad" they mean the expectations part of them'.

Quote:Joe Forcer and the Mystery of the Evil Tulpa!

I don't disagree with the message to treat everything with scepticism, but I don't like how you imply that shocking reports are probably false. In fact, Joe should take the 'internet authorities'' saying that such things don't happen with just as much suspicion. Points for an accurate portrayal of the average tulpamancer though.

Yeah, that's pretty much it. Reflecting, I can't really think of any particular item that's unique here. I would be approving for the presentation more than anything else if I did, and I will, if you take what I said into consideration and maybe also if you don't.

This is a pretty general FAQ_Man/Irish-style guide. It reads mostly fine and I would feel comfortable recommending it to a newbie that wanted a guide of that style, which was written in more recent times.

Most of the contents is agreeable, I was even expecting the guide to skimp on a few important details of the creation process that so many guides skimp on, but it didn't, and that was a positive surprise.

The guide itself could of course be improved in many ways (method-wise), as any guide can, but I think that by doing so, it would be a different kind of guide, thus I'll save any recommendations here as they would be unnecessary, even if they can be made: for example, there are more ways to do personality than just trait lists, symbolism (and mentioned a bit later on, parroting).

The Narration section is quite good, but yes, fix that "tulpar" typo eventually.

As waffles said, the schizophrenia question has some unknowns - there are cases of people who are predisposed to it and using one's imagination or even meditating or drug use could trigger it. I don't think it's something the reader should worry much about - if they have it, they have it, and in the worst case scenario, they'll find out sooner than later, but of course, plain tulpa creation in itself isn't likely to induce it (that said, many would claim that tulpa creation is self-induced multiplicity where some psychiatrists may be tempted to stick a label for some people's tulpas, especially if the relationship between the host and the tulpas aren't ideal).

I'm not sure how needed the "Joe Forcer" section is - some people may be more skeptical, while someone else may eat up anything they hear. Overall, I don't think it's a good idea to tell people to expect everyone to be a liar, rather than they may want to take some claims with a grain of salt - the problem with this is that for different people, what makes sense and what doesn't is different. Of course the whole "tulpa wants to kill host" thing is stupid in most circumstances, but there are subtler things which some people may find controversial. Taken to an extreme, one can find people that have been in this community for a year or longer and have yet to achieve much progress and doubt the possibility of this entire process despite still spending a lot of time on it. How much salt one should take with other claims isn't something a guide can easily teach - it takes experience, but of course, simple things as you mentioned *should* be obvious to most people. There's even a related problem with this where someone tells someone else something unfortunate that happened with their tulpa, and now the other person thinks it's the norm and starts expecting their young tulpa to be like that too, and suddenly you now have cases of them experiencing the same trouble - a classical example of "frontloading" - sometimes this may be good and beneficial, other times harmful, and in most cases newbies aren't sufficiently prepared to understand the subtleties and I'm not sure a guide can easily teach it without making things overall worse.

The Possession and especially the Switching section are not as complete as they could be, but I suppose that's only fair if you haven't worked with your tulpa in that area as much.

The Possession section seems to mention DJFlix's "liquid" method and the old body suit/hand glove method. Both are quite symbolic and sometimes possession is simpler for some people and don't require symbolism, bur rather just understanding various concepts such as letting go of control, the tulpa taking control, deep relaxation and so on.

The Switching section is quite incomplete and I think you may be frontloading people by saying it's "hard" or "few people did it", when there are cases of people getting it with ease (if not that many). I don't really object to the "back"/"front" terminology borrowed from multiple glossary - it's meant to describe degrees of dissociation or connectedness to the body and the senses. Sometimes the terms are misused, but our current terms for describing degrees of dissociation are very clumsy and I don't mind shorthands as those.

The Glossary's definitions have a few quirks:

Thoughtform refers to "daemons" which are not defined in the glossary - maybe the reader will have to google to find out more?

The servitor definition is FAQ_Man's, which is fine and dandy as far as this community goes, but there were various other definitions for that term that came before FAQ_Man's definition and people knowing that definition sometimes use it and clash with people from this community (see: glitchthe3rd's definition of servitor or some of the magick folk's definition of servitor and so on). Personally, I do think this definition is the only one worth keeping for the purposes of the tulpa community, but confusion may be inevitable as older definitions clash.